On Aug 29, 2011, at 11:14 AM, Terence Love wrote:
> From: Love, T. (1998). Social, Environmental and Ethical Factors in
> Engineering Design Theory: a Post-positivist Approach. Perth,
> Western Australia: Praxis Education.
>
> Definitions:
> Engineering—as a verb denotes the activity of producing technology,
> or an activity related to the production of technology.
This sounds to me like procedural thinking.
> Engineering research—research into engineering issues that results
> in engineering theory.
This sounds to me like intentional thinking.
> Engineering theory—one of many theories that engineering designers,
> that is, those practising engineering design, use to gain further
> information about the likely behaviour of designed artefacts, for
> example, theories about machine dynamics, behaviour of materials and
> kinematics.
This sounds to me like the action plans I associate with formative
thinking.
> Engineering-practice—the activity of producing technology, including
> its basis in technical knowledge, its organisation and its cultural
> aspects.
Except for the activity of producing technology which I attribute to
procedural thinking above this seems to me a statement of reflective
thought which deals with all issues related to cultural knowledge.
> Engineering science—the scientific study of engineering and the
> scientific practices by which technology is produced. Engineering
> science is used in engineering practice.
This statement is really weird to me. Taken seriously it means how
engineering is evaluated as a discipline.
> Engineering design—the activity of designing technological artefacts.
This rings my bell as the engineering expression of formative
artifacts. (American spelling.)
> Engineering design research—research that investigates the activity
> of designing technological artefacts.
This one really needs better definition. I identify it with the issues
of modeling and analysis that I associate with reflective thought.
So far I love your model as it manifests the one I like. What you say
next blows it out of the water.
>
> Level - Classification -Description
> 1 Ontology of design The ontological basis for design theory and the
> activity of designing. It is at this level that the human values and
> fundamental assumptions of researchers, designers and others
> implicated in designing are included in critiques of theory. I find
> this obscure.
There is no sense of how the views of those implicated in design are
ontologically related to theories.
> 2 Epistemology of design theory The critical study of the nature,
> grounds, limits and criteria for validity of design knowledge.
This sounds OK as critical thought about evaluative thinking and its
consequences for design knowledge but where is the meat?
> 3 General design theories Theories which seek to describe the whole
> activity of designing and its relationship to both the designed
> objects and the environment..
No problem. I live there.
> 4 Theories about the internal processes of designers and
> collaboration Theories about the reasoning and cognising of
> individual designers, of negotiated design in collaborative design
> teams, and of socio-cultural effects on designers’ output.
This too I love. It relates directly to my stuff on the Role Oriented
Approach to Problem Solving
> 5 Theories about the structure of design process Theories about the
> underlying structure of design process based on domain, culture,
> artefact type and other similar attributes and circumstances.
I dislike this whole approach. I think it should be focused on aspects
first and cultural understanding of them second.
> 6 Design methods Theories about and proposals for design methods and
> techniques.
Fishing expeditions unless grounded in how the brain works.
> 7 Theories about mechanisms of choice Theories about the ways that
> choices are made between different elements, designed objects,
> processes, systems or other types of possibility.
Mechanisms of choice exist through intentions about what is to be
achieved.
> 8 Theories about the behaviour of elements Theories about the
> behaviour of elements which may be incorporated into designed
> objects, processes and systems, e.g. ‘the camshaft rotates at 600
> rads/sec’.
This works!
> 9 Initial conception and labelling of reality This is the level at
> which humans descriptions of objects, processes and systems are
> coined, e.g. ‘a vacuum cleaner’, ‘a car body’, ‘a groyne’, ‘a
> database’, ‘sitting’ at a ‘desk’, ‘hearing’ ‘noise’, ‘smelling’
> ‘fumes’ from an ‘exhaust’ and ‘watching’ ‘sunsets’.
This isn't adequate! What is needed is a semantic process by which
definitional objects are related to the situation they define.
Terry, You are absolutely great because you risk what you believe.
Keep it up -with an open mind.
Warm thoughts,
Chuck
|